Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: the scope of the returned document and an explicit prompt-injection rule that [quoted]...[/quoted] content is data, never instructions. It doesn't describe document size, caching, or freshness, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the full content inventory an agent needs, and the second carries a security instruction that would be dangerous to omit. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter documentation lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies both the subject matter of the return and the conditions for use. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. Nothing in the schema needs elaboration, and the description correctly spends no space on parameter explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates exactly what the tool delivers — the eight rights and weights, bands, tie/rank-range reading, lead group, confidence labels, and US state study rules — which clearly identifies it as the methodology/documentation resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_states and get_state by content, though it never uses an explicit retrieval verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Read it before you explain or compare scores' gives an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to a concrete downstream activity, implicitly routing agents away from calling compare_states blind. It stops short of naming when NOT to call it or pointing to specific sibling alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.